Financial Management in the Public Sector – how accrual

paltryclewΔιαχείριση

9 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 7 μήνες)

79 εμφανίσεις


Address to the Challenge of Change:
Driving Governance and Accountability
CPA Forum 2004







Financial Management in the
Public Sector – How Accrual
Accounting and Budgeting
Enhances Governance and
Accountability

21 August 2004






Pat Barrett
Auditor-General for Australia

A
U
S
T
R
A
L
I
A
N

N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L

A
U
D
I
T

O
F
F
I
C
E
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
1 of 44
Financial Management in the Public Sector – how accrual accounting
and budgeting enhances governance and accountability

I. Some Introductory Remarks

I appreciate the opportunity to speak at this session of the CPA Forum 2004 on
financial management in the public sector. Encouraging improvement in key areas of
Australian government public administration is an underlying theme in many of the
Australian National Audit Office’s (ANAO’s) audits, with a strong emphasis on the
operational aspects of financial management and reporting, including the related
control and accountability issues. As the Queensland Deputy Premier observed
recently ‘A commitment to strong financial management and accountability is driving
continual improvement in governance in …public sector agencies and government-
owned corporations’.
1


Patrick Weller in his book Australia’s Mandarins
2
makes the valid observation that
the old ‘traditional’ image of the Australian Public Service (APS) was one committed
to procedure, or process, at the expense of effective outcomes. Due process was
paramount, control emanated from the centre to ensure consistency (in theory at least)
between departments and prevent any irresponsible misuse of public funds. Moneys
were appropriated annually for items of expenditure, not programs, with under-
expenditure seen by parliamentary committees as a sign of inefficiency, or even
incompetence.
3


There were calls for reforms (often based on the view that the public sector should be
organised more like the private sector) which borrowed heavily on the language of the
private sector, not only for government business enterprises but also for departments
that had no ‘bottom line’ or balance sheet. The new accrual accounting methods
reflected accounting approaches taken in the private sector, with agencies responsible
for their own operating statement and balance sheet,
4
resulting in a shift to where:

‘Suddenly officials were required to give a service to the community, rather
than provide entitlements to those fitting the criteria determined by
legislation. Entrepreneurial managers were in demand. At the same time
parliamentary committees became more demanding and inquisitive…’
5


This sectoral convergence, from the public sector’s perspective, has occurred as a
direct result of citizen demands for a more efficient and responsive delivery of
government services and the introduction of a paradigm shift in public administration,
the so called New Public Management (NPM). Dr Shergold, the head of Australia’s
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, encapsulated the change as follows:

‘The last decade has seen much greater emphasis placed on value-for-money
in [government] service provision; explicit focus on outputs and outcomes
rather than input and process; the adoption and adaptation of new
information technology; improved client focus; and the introduction of
systematic measurement and evaluation of corporate and individual
performance’
6
.

CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
2 of 44
The Australian government’s financial framework is now firmly based on an accrual-
based outcome and outputs model. It is designed to allow the Parliament to ascertain
the real cost of delivering benefits to the Australian community (outcomes) and
agency goods and services (outputs). The ANAO has observed that the key
components of effective financial management include:

access to relevant information;

use of that information to enhance management standards; and

assurance that the information is accurate, relevant and secure.
7


Clearly, a fundamental pre-condition for the effective use of financial information is
reliable and timely data. In that respect, the APS financial environment continues to
require a high level focus on the control structures that facilitate Chief Executive
Officers (CEOs) meeting their responsibilities under the Financial Management and
Accountability Act 1997. The emphasis on significant business risks impacting on the
APS financial operations, and on the evaluation of the design and effectiveness of
those procedures identified to mitigate those risks, poses significant challenges for
APS senior management.

With the shift to the new public management, Professor Weller
8
raises some
interesting questions which I will also touch upon in my talk today, namely: in what
ways is the public sector the same as the private sector? are the demands on managers
now greater than in the past? Do demands for accountability make the job so different
that it does not really make sense to talk in terms of managing in the same way? is
public management therefore a unique skill?

We have already heard from Phil Bowen, who has set the scene with his presentation
on the challenges, benefits and opportunities associated with accrual accounting and
budgeting. Against this backdrop, my ‘brief’ for today is to provide some thoughts
and insights on how good financial management, including accrual accounting and
budgeting, can be a driver to improve corporate governance and accountability in the
public sector. I will try not to track over the ground already covered by Phil. I will
address the brief in three parts, as follows:

First :
Accrual Accounting - a public service perspective.

The introduction, by the Australian Government in the 1990s, of accrual accounting
and budgeting systems was aimed at making the public sector more efficient and its
processes more transparent. While many improvements have been achieved by the
reforms, some commentators
9
argue that significant concerns remain, claiming that in
order to apply business accrual accounting concepts, government agencies have had to
operate as if they were business entities — but they are not. Some have also argued
that the accrual accounting systems adopted by government have distorted the nature
of accounting measurement, particularly in areas where such measurement is difficult.

While, in my view, the adoption of an accrual based regime in the public sector,
overall, has been positive (by enhancing efficiency, effectiveness, accountability and
allowing the better costing of programs and services provided by government) the
enabling systems must be tailored to suit that environment. Clearly, much of the
framework has been completed but there is more work needed in the financial
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
3 of 44
reporting arena (particularly with the harmonisation of accounting standards) and,
importantly, to ensure that the accrual budgeting and financial management
framework forms part of the normal
public sector operating environment (that is,
financial resources, including decision-making, accountability and good governance)
and not simply seen as ‘an add on’ or something that is undertaken just to comply
with government requirements. This is a sentiment recently echoed by the Canadian
Auditor General:

Departments and agencies must now improve the use of accrual
financial information in their decision making and management and
reporting practice; otherwise accrual accounting will be seen as
something that is undertaken only to comply with .. directives of
government.
10


Second :
Accountability Enhanced.

A generation ago the bureaucracy was largely seen as uncommunicative, a virtual
‘black box’. Information was restricted and Parliamentary review ‘was no antidote.’
11

With changes in society there were calls for new accountability requirements with the
expectations of the public seeking a more transparent and open government. Much of
the pressure for increased accountability has been external – even today there is a
trend towards an ever-increasing demand for greater accountability, particularly
transparency, with citizens wanting to know whether public resources are being
properly used and what is being achieved with them. A common catch-cry is for a
more ‘responsive’ public service. It is almost axiomatic that accrual accounting is
able to produce better quality information for decision-makers and accountability
mechanisms - a theme I will develop further in this part of my paper.

Third:
Public Sector Governance

The general public is placing more importance on good governance within both
sectors. However, in the public sector, they are concerned that government programs
are well managed and meeting their objectives – this means greater openness and
transparency. There is a desire to hold Parliament, Government, and public officials
directly accountable for results – leading to demands for sound public sector
governance frameworks not only to be established, but also to be functioning
properly. Having sound financial management and reporting in the public sector is an
important contributor in achieving greater transparency, accountability, fiscal
responsibility and, hence, improved governance.

Having dealt with accountability which, in my view, is inextricably linked with the
concept of corporate governance, I will discuss the complexity of the governance
arrangements in the Australian public sector context and then focus on implementing
sound governance principles with better practice. I will conclude with some general
observations on the central issues of the topic.





CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
4 of 44
II. Accrual Accounting – a Public Sector Perspective

In order to provide some contextual understanding of my later observations, the
following is a brief overview of the extensive financial management reform process
that has been undertaken in the Australian public sector over the last decade,
focussing on the adoption of accrual accounting and other relevant new public
management initiatives.

Adoption of Accrual Accounting


The adoption of accrual accounting as part of the Financial Management
Improvement Program (introduced in 1984) received widespread support because,
while the cash based system was seen to be necessary for government fiscal policy
purposes, it could be manipulated, or provide a misleading picture, through the timing
of transactions and through inconsistent treatment of budget and non-budget sector
items. But, more importantly, the cash based system did not report a wide range of
financial information required for the sound management of government activities and
resources, and for performance assessment. The following are some examples:


The full costs of programs and of departmental activities, as well as, more
recently, of the whole-of-government activities, were not recorded. This
information is necessary for determining budget priorities and for efficient
management of operations, with the costs of using, for example, existing
assets, running down inventories, and unfunded expenses such as staff
superannuation costs, not being recognized.


There was no systematic record of the stock of the government’s non-cash
assets and of its non-borrowing liabilities, for example, superannuation.


There was no measurement and reporting to Parliament, and to the public, of
the performance of management with respect to efficient cost control, asset
and liability management, and service delivery - a serious shortfall in
performance accountability. Performance measurement under the cash based
system was basically restricted to budget expenditure compliance.
12


Thus, the case for the adoption of accrual accounting by government to enhance
operating efficiency, the management of non-cash assets and liabilities, and
performance measurement and accountability, seemed an overwhelming one.
However, there are other views on this issue. For example, a leading Australian
academic (Professor Allan Barton of the Australian National University) makes the
claim that ‘Unfortunately for the public sector, the accrual accounting standards
adopted by it were the ones prepared for use by the business sector’
13
which raises
questions about differences between the public and private sectors, which I will return
to later.





The New Public Management Reforms

CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
5 of 44

Once the accrual accounting systems had been implemented, the next step in the
reform process involved the re-modeling and reforming of departmental operations
according to business principles and practices.

Perhaps the most definitive characteristic of the New Public Management (NPM) is
the greater salience that is given to what has been referred to as the three ‘Es’ –
economy, efficiency and effectiveness. NPM refers to the collection of tactics and
strategies that seek to enhance the performance of the public sector, that is, to improve
the ability of government agencies to produce results.
14
This has seen the trend
towards the greater outsourcing of public (so-called traditional) functions and the
greater focus on the contestability of services in the public sector. As two Australian
academic commentators have observed:

NPM reform in the APS has been consistently grounded in, and developed
and applied, on the basis of institutional economic theory, inspired by the
rhetoric of rationalising public sector activities…Broadly, the reform
programme is based on key principles [of]..separation of the contracting of
services from service delivery; funding based on results (outputs and
outcomes) as opposed to inputs in an environment permitting private-sector
suppliers to determine the most effective and innovative ways to produce the
contracted services; and a commitment to reducing the role of government in
the direct provision of services.
15


These reforms are largely based on the premise that greater efficiency and lower costs
can be achieved by applying private sector practices to public sector service delivery
– that is the notion of market competition and associated management disciplines.
Increasingly, governments have been exploring the potential benefits that can flow
from private sector involvement with the delivery of government outcomes through
public-private partnerships (PPPs), outsourcing, joined-up or collaborative
government and private financing initiatives (PFIs). Their principal features include
some (or all) of the following: the delivery of services normally provided by
government, the creation of assets through private sector financing and ownership
control, and government support through, say, contribution of land, capital works, and
risk sharing. In some cases, this means that private sector management models have
overlayed traditional public sector activity. In others, the private sector has become
fully incorporated in the delivery of public services through contract, as well as
through cooperative and partnering arrangements.

Accrual Accounting – a catalyst for change in the public sector


While being an important catalyst for change, as part of the NPM reforms, accrual
accounting has, in turn, had significant influence on the direction of financial
management and financial reporting across the public sector in Australia. The accrual
based financial management reform has also been a ‘driver’ for other key initiatives,
including:


a shift from input to output based budgets and outcomes reporting;


turning to market testing/benchmarking and outsourcing for the delivery of
government services;
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
6 of 44


the evolution of performance measurement and management using the
balanced score card approach;


recognition of the importance of ownership and management; and


the preparation of whole of government financial statements.
16


The APS move from cash to accrual accounting was a significant development, not
just for accounting systems and financial reporting, but also for the way in which
resources were being managed and accounted for. As well, in the latter part of the
1990s, a series of related principles-based legislative changes, budgetary reforms and
reporting initiatives were introduced. Importantly, the resulting framework continued
the devolution of authority from central to line agencies, including making the Chief
Executive Officer responsible for the ethical, efficient and effective use of an
agency’s resources.

All Australian government agencies now operate on the basis of an outcomes and
outputs framework (introduced in 1999-2000) where the Government delivers
benefits or services to the Australian community (outcomes) primarily through
administered items and agencies’ goods and services (outputs) which are delivered
against specific performance benchmarks or targets (indicators).
17
: The framework
has the following features:


the Government specifies, via outcome statements, the outcomes it is seeking
to achieve in given areas;


these outcomes are specified in terms of the impact government is aiming to
have on some aspect of society, for example, Defence;


Parliament appropriates funds, on an accrual basis, to allow the government to
achieve these outcomes through administered items and departmental outputs;


items such as grants, transfers and benefit payments are administered on the
government’s behalf by agencies, with a view to maximising their contribution
to specified outcomes;


agencies specify the nature and full accrual price of their outputs and manage
them to maximise their contribution to the achievement of the Government’s
desired outcomes;


performance indicators are developed to allow for scrutiny of effectiveness
(that is, the impact of the outputs and administered terms on outcomes) and
efficiency (especially in terms of the application of administered items and the
price, quality and quantity of outputs); and


agencies discuss in their annual reports their performance against their
performance indicators.
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
7 of 44
To complete the picture of change, other major initiatives introduced in the late 1990s
have included:

principles of financial management reflected in the Financial Management
and Accountability (FMA) Act 1997 and the Commonwealth Authorities and
Companies (CAC) Act 1997;

principles of sound fiscal management for Government through the Charter of
Budget Honesty Act 1998;

broad reaching mandate for the Auditor-General and the Australian National
Audit Office (ANAO) through the Auditor-General Act 1997;

performance improvement cycles; and

competitive pricing policies.
The over-arching thrust of these initiatives is aimed at cultivating a performance and
accountability culture within the APS. They also reinforce the need for the
Government to better use its resources and treat its citizens as clients or customers to
improve their satisfaction with service delivery. A significant ‘driver’ was to require
consideration whether the public sector is best placed to deliver the desired outputs
(and outcomes), or whether the private sector could more economically and efficiently
provide the same service – this has resulted in a degree of integration, and a growing
recognition of common approaches, between the two sectors.
Clearly, these decisions must be based on the appropriate analysis of real costs, prices,
and any savings involved. Obtaining a credible public sector ‘comparator’ is
dependent, to large degree, on accrual based systems and an understanding of
commercially based financial analysis, including derivation of comparable costs and
prices. Accrual information has also been important in relation to longer term
strategic planning, particularly in relation to capital and debt management, and
identifying inter-generational inequities.

Accrual Accounting - Outcome Reporting


Under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act) and the
Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 agencies and other federal
government bodies are required to prepare annual financial statements to be audited
by the Auditor-General, who is required to report each year to the relevant Minister(s)
on whether the entity’s financial statements have been presented fairly in accordance
with Accounting Standards and other mandatory professional reporting requirements.
In addition, at the close of each financial year, the Government prepares two key
financial reports:

the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Australian Government
(CFS)
which are prepared and audited pursuant to section 55 and 56 of the FMA Act,
to present the financial results and financial position of the Commonwealth.
The CFS is prepared on an accrual accounting basis in accordance with
applicable Australian Accounting Standards (AAS), including AAS 31
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
8 of 44
Financial Reporting by Governments, and other mandatory professional
reporting requirements in Australia and statutory requirements; and


the Final Budget Outcome Report
(FBO Report) which is prepared pursuant to
section 18 of the Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1998 (the Charter) to present
Commonwealth budget sector and Commonwealth general government sector
fiscal outcomes for a financial year. The FBO Report is based on the
Australian Bureau of Statistics accrual Government Finance Statistics (GFS)
framework as well as on the AAS. The Charter also requires that departures
from applicable external reporting standards be identified. In this regard, the
major differences between the GFS and AAS treatments of transactions are
reconciled, as well as being included in the Budget Papers.


The Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1998 requires periodical reviews of the Budget
Estimates Framework to assess its accuracy, responsiveness and effectiveness in
meeting the needs of the Government; and to identify areas where further refinements
may be made, for the purposes of continuous improvement. This legislation is
regarded as an important discipline on the budgetary framework and promotes greater
confidence in the Output-Outcome information provided, as well as in the estimation
processes and budget outcomes.
A recent review
18
provided recommendations for the refinement of the
accounting/budgetary framework, all of which were endorsed by the Government.
Some of the particularly interesting recommendations include:

progressively tighter reporting timeframes to facilitate eventual reporting of
Final Budget Outcome within 45 days of end of financial year (currently 90
days);

detailed financial information at a program level, including monthly cash and
accrual reports; and

additional cash information to supplement accrual budget and actual
information.

Implementing these recommendations is an important part of the financial
management challenges facing the APS. Two additional challenges are the adoption
of international financial reporting standards (focused on the private sector but with
the potential to flow on to the public sector) and the harmonisation of Australian
generally accepted accounting principles and Government Financial Statistics (GFS).

Adopting International Financial Reporting Standards

In July 2002, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) gave the Australian Accounting
Standards Board (AASB) a strategic direction for Australia to adopt International
Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) for reporting periods starting on, or after, 1
January 2005.

The reasons for adoption of IFRSs are explained in the Corporate Law Economic
Reform Program initiative (CLERP) of which the Corporate Law Economic Reform
Program (Audit Reform and Corporate Disclosure) Bill 2003 (generally referred to as
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
9 of 44
CLERP 9) is the ninth paper in that series of Government proposals to amend
Australia’s corporate law. For the private sector, entities will be able to list on more
than one stock exchange around the world and only prepare one set of financial
statements. Additionally, the cost of capital will be positively influenced due to the
need to prepare only one set of accounts. As Sir David Tweedie (the Chair of the
International Accounting Standards Board) opined recently:

The real objective is to have one single set of accounting standards, so it
doesn’t matter whether a transaction takes place in Brisbane, Beijing or
Brussels or Boston, we’ll account for it in the same way. At present we’ll do
it in four different ways, and that’s just very confusing.
19


The benefits envisaged by the AASB include opening Australia up to the world
investment markets, facilitating more meaningful comparisons of the financial
performance, and financial position of Australian and foreign public sector reporting
entities; and improving the quality of financial reporting in Australia to international
best practice. However, an ongoing issue is also to clearly articulate some concept of
measurement. This has been a long term challenge for accountants in Australia.
As in Europe,
20
there are reservations being expressed in Australia about
harmonisation with, for example, requests being made to the AASB to allow an
‘alternative treatment’ for Australian Companies
21
. However, the Regulator
(Australian Securities and Investments Commission) plans to take a tough stance on
non-compliance. There is also some reported uncertainty between the AASB and the
Regulator as to who is responsible for interpreting accounting standards
22
. This is
clearly of interest to both the private and public sectors.
It is proposed by the AASB that the new standards will be sector neutral, (that is, the
standards will be equally applicable to all sectors) although further disclosure
requirements may be added for the public sector. Newberry
23
questions the concept
of sector neutrality and the virtues of applying private sector-like practices in the
public sector and argues that the public and private sectors have vastly different
accountability, governance, reporting goals, and operating motives.
Whether true sector neutrality exists within the International Accounting Standards
Board’s (IASB’s) conceptual framework has also come into question. In their
updated plan for adopting IASB standards, the AASB have noted ‘…it’s necessary to
adopt the IASB Framework when adopting IASB standards because the standards are
based on that Framework.”
24
Jones and Wolnizer question whether the IASB’s
conceptual framework will be ‘..equally applicable to the public sector and the
private not-for-profit sector [as] currently, the IASB framework provides no guidance
for public sector and not-for-profit entities.’
25

Despite the on-going debate, rapidly approaching deadlines mean Australia will be
held to the AASB’s notion of sector neutral reporting standards.
Jones and Wolnizer also note concerns about Australia adopting the IASB’s
conceptual framework, posing the following questions for clarification and
discussion
26
:
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
10 of 44

If the IASB’s conceptual framework replaces the Australian conceptual
framework, will it be of sufficient quality, scope and depth to provide
adequate guidance for the standard setting process and serve the needs of
users?

If the IASB’s conceptual framework is adopted, what will be the IASB’s
future program for the development of the conceptual framework, particularly
on issues such as the reporting entity concept and accounting measurement?

Can the IASB realistically develop a workable conceptual framework that will
be acceptable on a global level?

What will be the impediments and obstacles to the development of such a
framework?

Will the conceptual framework continue to serve the same standard setting
objectives and priorities that it has traditionally performed in Australia?
The timing of the deadlines to implement IFRSs in Australia mean that such questions
need to be answered sooner rather than later. Many would agree that it would be
better to have a sector neutral conceptual framework that allowed for any differences
relating, say, to small to medium size enterprises, not-for-profit organisations and the
public sector to be covered within that framework. However, there would also be
agreement with an observation by Professor Murray Wells that:
A conceptual framework that does no more than articulate a set of arbitrarily
or politically motivated rules cannot and will not serve the legitimate interests
of the stakeholders of business and Government enterprises.
27

The implementation timetable for IFRSs in Australia became clearer when the
Australian Accounting Standards Board issued AASB 1 - First Time Adoption of
Australian International Financial Reporting Pronouncements in December 2003.
This standard outlines the transitional arrangements for IFRSs, including that of
retrospective application. This requirement shifts implementation deadlines to be
significantly earlier than initially thought. For example, an entity with a 30 June
balance date (the most common date for the public sector) has had to prepare an
internationally compliant opening balance sheet as at 1 July 2004, to adjust opening
retained earnings. This balance sheet is being prepared, but not published, in
readiness for recording accounting transactions for the 2004-2005 financial year. In
effect, there are two sets of financial statements to be prepared for the 2004-2005
financial year. One set should be compliant with current Australian accounting
standards for publication; the second set should be IFRS-compliant to form the
comparatives for the 2005-2006 financial statements.
Changes that both sectors need to be aware of are those that require:

recognition or de-recognition of assets or liabilities;

new recognition criteria of revenues and expenses;

different data to be collected in calendar 2004, financial year 2004-2005 and
onwards;
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
11 of 44

changes to systems; and

changes in the information to be disclosed.
A broader issue to be considered is the impact of changes to accounting standards
upon key performance indicators and other measures of success for outcomes and
outputs – an issue of considerable relevance when cultivating a culture of
performance and accountability. For example, changes to measurement may impact
upon the calculation of a range of measures, such as key performance indicators and
budgeted information. This may limit the comparability of information over time, due
to the need to not only understand the accounting information being presented, but
also the ways in which it has changed due to adoption of international standards. In a
climate of assessing performance using accounting information, there is a danger that
misleading analyses may be made without such full knowledge and understanding.
Setting a Single Framework – The harmonisation of Australian generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP) and Government Finance Statistics

Focus on the adoption of international financial reporting standards reflects the first
strategic direction issued by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC). However, there
was also a second direction issued in November 2002 relating specifically to public
sector reporting, namely:

With regard to public sector reporting, the Board should pursue as an urgent
priority the harmonisation of Government Finance Statistics (GFS) and
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) reporting. The objective
should be to achieve an Australian accounting standard for a single set of
Government reports which are auditable, comparable between jurisdictions,
and in which the outcome statements are directly comparable with the
relevant budget statements.
28


As I have already mentioned, Australian public sector jurisdictions currently report
outcomes using both the accounting framework developed by the International
Monetary Fund for the production of national and government accounts (that is,
Government Finance Statistics - GFS) and generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP) frameworks. The GFS reporting framework is a sophisticated statistical
system, consistent with international statistical standards
29
and guidance published by
the International Monetary Fund. This framework provides comprehensive statistical
information and assessments for economic analysis of the public sector, and reflects
the needs of fiscal analysts and other users interested in such analysis. This approach
contrasts with Australian GAAP, which aims to provide users with sufficient
information to evaluate the entity’s financial performance and position, and its use of
resources.

The current dual reporting regime contributes to a proliferation of aggregated
measures in budget documents and other outcome reporting documents. This different
presentation of financial information in turn leads users (who are many and varied) to
find it complex and difficult to follow. Additionally, this dual reporting means that
budgets are not always directly comparable across jurisdictions which impacts on the
usefulness and relevance of the documents.
30
In addition to conceptual
inconsistencies, there are a number of technical differences between GFS and
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
12 of 44
Australian GAAP relating to timing and so-called ‘permanent’ differences
31
, which
lead to dissimilar net results and/or balance sheet presentation and outcomes.

Brett Kaufmann,
32
from the Australian Department of Finance and Administration,
makes two important points, namely:


Different business models drive the two sectors
- the budget is a key document
in the public sector because taxpayers and the markets want to know what
governments intend to do with their tax dollars and this allocation of these
scarce resources is set out in the budget. This is a wealth redistribution
business model as opposed to the wealth creation business model of the
private sector with its focus on outcome statements in the form of general
purpose financial reports (GPFRs).


Appropriate measures
- the performance of private sector entities is assessed
through measures such as profit and loss, equity, earnings per share, and return
on assets which are consistent with the wealth creation business model but not
with the wealth creation model of the public sector. Where as the public
sector exist to deliver goods and services to the community either directly by
government agencies, through outsourcing to the private sector or through
funding arrangements with the other two tiers of government.

The ASB has an ambitious GAAP/GFS conversion timetable
33
, with an exposure
draft scheduled for release in March 2005 for application of the new standard in 2005-
2006. The AASB's GAAP/GFS convergence project is being undertaken in three
phases:
Phase 1
: whole of government (including sectors);
Phase 2
: entities within General Government Sector (GGS) (including
government departments); and
Phase 3
: local governments and other public sector entities (including
universities and government business enterprises).
The results will be implemented having regard to international activities, in particular,
the work being undertaken and to be undertaken by the IASB, IFAC-PSC, IMF and
OECD. The outcome of this project is to create an ‘Australian accounting standard
for a single set of Government reports which are auditable, comparable between
jurisdictions, and in which the outcome statements are directly comparable with the
relevant budget statements.’
34

Consequently, any changes to be taken in response to this new standard may well
coincide with preparations being made for the implementation of harmonised
accounting standards for reporting periods starting on, or after, 1 January 2005. This
will accentuate the implementation complexity, not just in determining the
implications for an organisation and for its financial reporting, but also for any
systems changes that need to be made to reflect the impact of the new standards
framework.
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
13 of 44
Despite all of the efforts being expended on this project, the question remains as to
whether a harmonised framework can lead to better information and a better result for
the public sector? Australian GAAP and GFS currently give different information to
different audiences for different purposes. To harmonise these two incompatible
frameworks might lead to compromises being made which undermine the quality of
the very information being sought. One issue of concern raised is whether General
Government Sector reporting will remain credible, transparent, understandable and
comparable
35
. Nevertheless, there are distinct advantages of transparency and better
understanding, if successful harmonisation can be achieved.
The growing convergence of the public and private sectors in recent years may be
assisted by Australia’s commitment to adopt International Financial Reporting
Standards from January 2005. This commitment may further blur the distinction
between the public and private sectors as they will be largely using the same
accounting principles and rules. However, it is still not clear as to the extent that
international public sector accounting standards (under the control of the Public
Sector Committee of the International Federation of Accountants - IFAC) will
converge with those of the International Accounting Standards Board. Nevertheless,
the financial reports will be more internationally comparable, being both prepared and
audited using harmonised standards.
The presentation of public sector financial statements

Given this background, I will now move on to some issues associated with the
accounting policies used in preparation of public sector financial statements which, in
many ways, are more complex than those experienced in the private sector. Such
issues can make the interpretation of those financial statements difficult and, if users
do not understand the differences in the models and policies adopted, can lead to false
expectations and erroneous conclusions in relation to the financial results. In part,
some see any difficulty as being caused by the application of an accounting
framework, designed primarily for private sector financial relationships, to the public
sector. This is a view that has a degree of currency in a number of public forums,
nationally and internationally. As a consequence, such differences could have
important implications for governance and accountability in the public sector.

Professor Barton attributes the shortfalls in the accounting systems, where they occur,
to two interrelated factors – the adoption of a business model of accrual accounting,
and to a political ideology as expounded in the New Political Economy paradigm of
‘marketisation’ of public sector activities. He has expressed concerns about those
reforms and practices which, in his view, detract from the integrity of accounting –
which should provide information which is relevant and timely, reliable and have
representational faithfulness, be understandable, and facilitate the making of
comparisons.
36
I thought it may be useful to highlight two of his concerns, under the
following headings, as they are of apparent interest to the public sector.

(a) The abolition of Cash Accounting and Budgeting System (CABS)


With the introduction of accrual budgeting in Australia in 1999, CABS was abolished
and, with it, the direct recording of cash transactions and the requirement for all cash
transaction to pass through the Consolidated Revenue Fund with cash budgets no
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
14 of 44
longer presented to Parliament. Professor Barton opines that CABS should be
reinstated as a major component of a comprehensive accrual accounting system in the
public sector; believing that the scrapping of CABS upon the introduction of accrual
budgeting in 1999 was a grave mistake. Although cash flow outcome statements are
published, they are prepared from the accrual financial statements by adding back the
non-cash items, rather than being prepared directly from the cash transactions
completed each day by Government.
37


Indeed, notwithstanding successes to date of the current accrual framework, there
have been questions within the Parliament as to whether there should not be a greater
focus on cash expenditures and whether there has been sufficient control of cash in
the budget context. The ANAO’s experiences have also served to reinforce the
importance of effectively managing cash. I note that this is also a critical issue for the
private sector with ‘the trend towards seeing cash-flow management as a whole of
organisation process’
38


However, while meeting the Parliament’s information needs is important to the APS,
raising Parliamentarians’ awareness and understanding of the benefits of accrual
information for long term strategic planning and fiscal management should also
become a priority. This would lead to not only a greater appreciation of the
information provided, but also promote more extensive use of accrual information
during the decision-making and review processes. However, consistent with all
Commonwealth transactions, it is necessary to consider the ‘appropriateness’ of
expenditure, as opposed to its ‘accounting’ treatment, for the efficient, effective and
ethical use of resources as part of a robust governance framework with its primary
focus on accountability for performance and results.

(b) Use of a business model of accrual accounting for the public sector


Professor Barton makes the case that the business model of accrual accounting
adopted by the public sector is not suitable for core
government activities and does
not suit the unique, non-business environment of government - given that democratic
governments do not sell their products to citizens nor endeavour to operate at a profit.
To be useful, accounting information must satisfy the requirements of relevance,
reliability, understandability and comparability and hence be tailored to suit the
operating environment of government and the purposes for which it is required.

Professor Barton uses the Department of Defence in his article The Department of
Defence – Australia’s Most Profitable Business?
39
as an example of the apparently
misleading nature of departmental financial statements, if considered in a private
sector context. For the year ended 30 June 2002, the Department of Defence reported
total revenues of $18.99bn, a surplus $4.41bn, capital-use charge paid $4.6bn, net
assets and equity $45.59bn (comprising capital contribution $1.3bn, asset revaluation
reserves $6.2bn, and retained surpluses $38bn). On these figures, the Department
appears to be a highly profitable enterprise – it generated a surplus of 23% on
revenue, 340% on contributed capital and 9.7% on total equity. As well, it appears to
be largely self-funded, as the asset revaluation reserve and retained surpluses
contributed 97% of total equity.
40


CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
15 of 44
Given the nature of the department’s activities in providing defence services to the
nation, and its reliance on budget appropriations to fund its activities, Barton raises
the question ‘how can Defence have such an impressive financial performance and
strong financial position?’
41
His major point is expressed as follows:

‘..the department’s financial statements do not faithfully report the reality of
its financial operations even though they fully comply with Australian
Accounting Standards (AAS) and government accounting requirements…the
problems arise from ..having to operate as if they are pseudo-businesses
under the New Public Management reforms which include using business
accrual accounting standards’
.
42


This view also created some resonance from a small agency perspective. The
previous Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) argued that current
reporting requirements for government agencies ensured 'no-one can understand the
reports' except the accountants who produced them. The Office of the Inspector-
General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) is quite small. It has a full-time staff of
four and an annual budget of about $700 000.
43
The Inspector-General’s comments
stem from the application of the full force of the public sector accounting reforms.
These include accrual accounting, and the many pronouncements of Australian
Accounting Standards Boards. Another academic commentator observed that ‘The
financial statements that emerge from this cocktail are unedifying’,
44
and he went on
to draw the conclusion that:

The application of a business accrual model to a government funded body
like IGIS is inappropriate. It leads to IGIS masquerading as if it was a legal
entity in the private sector. It reports revenues from the sale of its services to
government of about $700 000 and an operating surplus (or profit) of
$66 719. But IGIS is not a private sector business and shouldn't account as if
it was. IGIS provides non-commercial public goods to government for
defence intelligence-related purposes in a competitor-free environment. It is
funded from an appropriation by government based on the cost of the
services it provides….The operating surplus or profit ($66 719) is a
contrivance for IGIS or any agency like it. While businesses in the private

sector must produce a profit to survive, there is no such imperative for IGIS
45


These comments illustrate how essential it is to provide clear guidance and
explanations as to just what the accrual concepts mean in the public sector both to
preserve the underlying principles and to achieve real ownership of those principles
and their application in a public sector context.

Balance Sheet Management in the Public Sector

There is one final issue that I wish to address – the balance sheet, which is a relatively
new concept for the public sector and one not widely understood or managed. While
accounting in the private sector has evolved over many decades, the public sector, as I
have already mentioned, continued to record and report its resources and their
application in terms of cash flows. This meant that the accounting for items such as
assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses were not considered by the traditional public
sector accountant nor, subsequently, by decision-makers.

CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
16 of 44
With this in mind, CPA Australia undertook research specifically focused on the
balance sheet to identify the extent to which it was actively managed in the public
sector. The resulting report, Striking the Balance,
46
found a majority of Public Sector
agencies did not actively manage their balance sheets and there was confusion on
ultimate accountability for the balance sheet. ‘The general consensus is that the
public sector should be managing the balance sheet even though there is little
incentive for agencies to do so. But the level at which this should occur is not clear,
as in many jurisdictions it is only at the whole of government level that any impacts
could be made’.
47


CPA Australia's Director of Public Sector, Adam Awty, said, ‘The research findings
confirm that the Public Sector has made significant in-roads on the reporting side of
balance sheets, the challenge now is for them to get better at managing the balance
sheet’, and ‘Addressing the weaknesses will remove barriers that impede effective and
efficient financial management within Government, which will ultimately provide the
accountability, transparency and governance sought by the community at large’
48


The report, as well as identifying impediments towards effective balance sheet
management, also provided advice on optimising the structure and composition of
public sector balance sheets and better practice guidance. For many, it is more
understandable to simply consider the notions of assets and liabilities and their
management. The report does assist senior agency managers and CEOs to do that.

Accrual Accounting – some concluding comments – lifting the veil?

The foregoing discussion was not meant to leave the impression that accrual
accounting should not be the general model of accounting used within the public
sector but, rather, to suggest that, while there are particular challenges for the public
sector, these are more in the nature of ‘.. the need to modify and augment the practices
so that they fit the peculiar circumstances and requirements of particular public
sector institutions’.
49
Clearly, the latter vary from organisations that largely provide
only policy advice; those that undertake research; those that are regulatory in nature;
those that deliver services without any charging; and those that are largely
commercial, even in direct competition with private sector firms.

There are issues with the presentation of public sector financial statements that we
still need to resolve. We are also being driven by external influences, such as the
standards harmonisation issue, which seems to be driving us down the ‘sector neutral’
accounting standards philosophy. If so, we must convey to the users of public sector
financial statements that, unlike private sector, the financial statements prepared by
Australian Government agencies do not solely reflect agency performance with the
operating result being a key performance measure. This interpretation is often
supported by a misconception that revenues from appropriations are aligned with the
delivery of outputs and outcomes. Mostly they are not, particularly for outcomes that
may take some, or many, years to deliver fully.
There is no overall
purchaser/provider model in place within the Australian federal
arena where agencies are provided with a level of appropriation funding which is
automatically adjusted for changes in either the cost, or quantity, of outputs delivered.
Nevertheless, we do have examples of such arrangements, which are akin to a private
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
17 of 44
sector operation. For the most part, the appropriation funding is not a payment for
services delivered, rather it is a payment in the nature of grant funding, which is not
solely dependent upon the delivery of services. In that respect, agency management
has a responsibility to meet the expected performance standards which go beyond
financial results. There is no ‘matching’ of revenue and expenses required to reflect
performance. The operating result reflects no more than the difference between the
funding provided to an agency during the year and the amounts expensed. This may
be a difficult principle to explain to many readers of the financial statements, a
number of whom would be familiar with the traditional forms of private sector
reporting where the operating result is a measure of performance and comes about as
a result of the matching of revenues and expenses.
Notwithstanding these kinds of issues, the introduction of the outcome/output/accrual
framework has lifted the veil, as it were, to show the true cost of delivering
government programs and has provided a catalyst for change in the public sector,
reflected in considerations of cost effectiveness, and ‘value for money’, and fostered a
culture based more on performance and accountability for results. Drawing again on
the observations of my Canadian counterpart, she makes the case thus:

‘..the adoption of accrual accounting in summary financial statements was
never intended to be an end in itself, but rather as part of a wider initiative to
improve financial management and control in government… Accrual
financial information is an integral component of good financial information
in government…Accrual financial information helps users appreciate the full
financial scope of government – the resources, obligations, financing, costs,
and impacts of its activities, including the costs of consuming assets over
time…This more complete picture enables legislators to hold the government
more accountable for the stewardship of assets, the full cost of its programs,
and its ability to meet short and long term financial obligations. Accrual
financial information can also help improve decision making with in
departments. Managers will improve their focus on the stewardship of assets
and liabilities under their control, consider the full periodic cost of providing
services, and examine how the full range of costs might affect their use of
public funds and assets’.
50


The CPA Australia report, Striking the Balance, makes the point that one key
advantage of accrual based reporting is that it offers the opportunity for governments
to improve their management of assets and liabilities. This is critical in the public
sector, particularly given that many of the significant assets are of a long-lived
infrastructure nature that are vital to providing a foundation for sustainable growth.
Under a cash based system, there is a tendency to focus primarily on whether or not to
spend money on new assets. Under an accrual based system, the focus also
extends to
whether to retain, or upgrade, existing assets. That is, the accrual based reporting
system focuses decision-makers on the broader range of options available for
managing assets.
51
I wish to stress the importance of asset control, noting the view,
held by some in the public sector, that: ‘There are no prizes for managing assets well
in the Commonwealth’.
52
Also I should refer you to the guidance on asset
management produced by the ANAO
53
, which although published in 1996, it still is
very much the ‘touch stone’ for good asset management practice.

CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
18 of 44
In summary, accrual-based reporting provides useful information about the real level
of a government’s liabilities, relating to both debts and other obligations such as
employee entitlements and the assets backing those entitlements. Governments cannot
hope to govern in a sustainable way unless they are made aware of the liabilities
created by the impact of current decisions.
54



III Accountability Enhanced

As Professor Weller has observed, public service accountability has improved
dramatically in the last generation.
55
Australian public sector agencies now routinely
provide public documents outlining goals and objectives, indicating corporate and
business planning and reporting on outcomes and outputs. While annual reports may,
on occasions, be criticised as unnecessarily detailed, and Portfolio Budgets Statements
necessarily complex, the scrutiny of Parliamentary committees means that they have
a ‘life off the shelf’.
56
To set the scene, I thought it would be useful to canvass the
requirements of accountability in the public sector before examining how accrual
based information can be a driver for enhanced personal and agency accountability
and improved transparency of the Australian government’s financial position.

Accountability requirements of the public sector

A Canadian publication - Modernizing Accountability Practices in the Public Sector -
offered the following definition of accountability that applies to a wide range of
accountability relationships: between Ministers and Secretaries, between departments
and central agencies, between public servants in a hierarchic relationship, between
parties in a partnering arrangement, and between the federal government and
Parliament. Each of these relationships is unique and has its own level of formality
and complexity. This is expressed as:

‘Accountability is a relationship based on obligations to demonstrate,
review, and take responsibility for performance, both the results achieved in
light of agreed expectations and the means used’.
57


This definition of accountability is consistent with managing for results; allows for
accountability among partners who might be equal and/or independent; and includes
obligations on all parties to the accountability relationship. It emphasizes the
importance of accountability for results as well as for the means used to achieve them.
It underlines the fact that effective accountability is not just simply about reporting
performance; it also requires review (evaluation), including appropriate corrective
actions, and the need to directly address likely and/or possible consequences for
individuals.

Today, citizens are demanding clearer and greater accountability for the way the
government makes decisions; spends their tax dollars; and uses its authority. But the
traditional view and practice of accountability are challenged in a public sector where
the focus is now much more on achieving results; where the public sector
increasingly engages in partnering arrangements within and across levels of
government and with outside organizations to determine and deliver public policy;
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
19 of 44
and where managers are encouraged to innovate and take reasonable risks that reflect
the public interest.
Robert Behn in his book – Rethinking Democratic Accountability
58
sees
accountability in terms of: accountability for finances
, accountability for fairness
, and
accountability for performance
.
59
He expands on this idea as follows:

Financial accountability - This is relatively straightforward. The
managers and employees of any public organization have been
entrusted with something valuable: taxpayers’ money. They have the
responsibility – the obligation – to use these funds wisely. They ought
to be held accountable for doing so.

Accountability for Fairness - Here government organizations and
their employees should be held accountable for more than simply
handling the finances properly. We also want to hold them
accountable for a variety of well-established norms of democratic
government – specifically for fairness.

Accountability for the Use (or Abuse) of Power - Public servants
award contracts, decide benefits, impose fines and exercise a lot of
discretion and we seek to hold them accountable by imposing rules
and regulations. However the accountability for power can be seen as
accountability for finances and fairness.

Accountability for Performance - Accountability for finances and
fairness reflect concerns for how government does what it does. But
we are also care what government does – what it actually
accomplishes. Accountability for performance ought to cover the
expectations of citizens; it ought to mean accountability to the entire
citizenry.
60


Behn also makes the point that improved performance is important and that citizens
certainly want improved performance, ‘But we don’t think you public managers can
only get that improved performance by getting rid of the rules that ensure financial
probity and guarantee fairness. Okay, the rules make it a little harder. But they
don’t make it impossible. They just mean that you have to be a little smarter, a little
more persistent’.
61
Accountability is really two tests – one for finances and fairness,
the other for performance, that is, one for process, another for results. These two tests
often seem to be in direct conflict, raising the issue of an appropriate balance between
conformance and performance.

The accountability dilemma: getting the right balance - conformance and
performance

Holding people accountable for performance while also holding them accountable for
use of finances and fairness creates an accountability dilemma. In a more privatised
public sector, what is a reasonable trade-off when, inevitably in a public sector
environment, the perceived needs for accountability can impact adversely on
economy and efficiency. A similar observation extends to the notion of effectiveness,
particularly where that concept does not apparently embrace accountability concerns,
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
20 of 44
such as transparency, equity of treatment and probity in the use of public resources,
including the application of public service values and codes of conduct.


The apparent accountability dilemma has been extensively commented on by, for
example, Professor Richard Mulgan of the Australian National University, in many
articles and presentations in recent years. The following is indicative:

‘Contracting out inevitably involves some reduction in accountability
through the removal of direct departmental and Ministerial control over
the day-to-day actions of contractors and their staff. Indeed, the removal
of such control is essential to the rationale for contracting out because
the main increases in efficiency come from the greater freedom allowed
to contracting providers’.
62


Hence, the ongoing challenge for public sector entities is achieving the ‘right’ balance
between conformance and performance at particular points in time and over time.
Many consider that this ‘balance’ is simply the outcome of sound risk management
with proper identification, prioritisation and treatment of the myriad of risks
confronting an organisation or, say, a public-private partnership. Nevertheless, the
outcome is largely determined by leadership decisions, values and identified
preferences and should be understood, and achieved, throughout the organisation as
well as sound ethical values and good conduct practices are also meant to be. The
notion of ‘public interest’ sets the bar quite high in these respects.

It is generally accepted that a degree of trade-off exists between conformance and
performance imperatives which may well be largely a result of sound risk
management as suggested above. For example, an undue emphasis on compliance
breeds a risk-averse culture that inhibits exploitation of emerging opportunities. At
the same time, it is apparent that a solid conformance control structure, embedded in
risk-management, protects an entity from ‘corporate governance delinquency’
63
, and
the possible severe impacts of this on individual and organisational performance.
This is not simply, nor should be, a ‘box-ticking’ exercise of relevant principles or
better practice. Nevertheless, reference to a check list of better practice can focus the
mind on issues that need to be addressed, particularly when an organisation is under
pressure to perform.

Most would agree that, in the past, the tendency in the public sector has been to focus
primarily on ensuring conformance with legal and procedural (including budgetary
and financial) requirements rather than single-minded striving for exceptional
performance. At one extreme we have the following observation of Donald Savoie, a
critique of the NPM
64
:

‘Public administration operates in a political environment that is always on
the lookout for errors and that exhibits an extremely low tolerance for
mistakes….In business it does not much matter if you get it wrong ten percent
of the time as long as you turn a profit at the end of the year. In government,
it does not much matter if you get it right 90 percent of the time because the
focus will be on the 10 percent of the time you get it wrong’.
65


This concern has undoubtedly encouraged a risk-averse attitude among public
servants in the past, which is said to have been reinforced by Parliamentary
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
21 of 44
expectations and attitudes expressed often in budget estimates examinations. It has
also been observed that such an environment has largely focussed bureaucratic
attention on administrative process rather than on achieving the stated objectives of
governments. It is also said that there needs to be a cultural change in the public
sector if public servants are to focus more on achieving required results and to be
accountable for their performance, including effective management, rather than just
avoidance, of risks in the future.

Put another way, the implied view is that the Australian Public Service (APS) could
have been more effective in constructing robust control structures aimed at assuring
achievement of defined outputs and outcomes, as well as being more responsive in
providing more efficient client-oriented services. Attention is now
being given to
addressing government programs and services directly to public sector clients, as
citizens, and not the other way around. The notion is to deliver services seamlessly to
citizens, including across government levels. And this is being gradually achieved,
particularly with the assistance of advances in information and communications
technology and software for the operation of intranets and the Internet itself.

This concept of ‘clients as citizens’ demonstrates the particular challenges faced by
public sector agencies in negotiating the changing governance environment. While it
may be appropriate, even desirable, for citizens to be considered as clients in terms of
service delivery, with all of the advantages that private sector models may offer in this
regard, it is less desirable in terms of meeting the public sector’s accountability
requirements. There is generally a higher standard of accountability demanded of the
public sector in relation to its clients – to whom it is ultimately responsible as citizens
and taxpayers – than there is in the equivalent relationship between private sector
entities and their clients. That is, there is more to client relationships than, say, a
marketing imperative. A practical comment on the perceived trade-off has been
provided by the former Canadian Auditor General, as follows:

The emphasis should not be solely on greater efficiency or on meeting
accountability requirements.
66


An appropriate compromise may have to be sought, which may involve re-
consideration by the Government and the Parliament as to the appropriate nature and
level of accountability of both public and private organisations where there is shared
responsibility, and even accountability for the delivery of public services to the
citizen. In this latter respect, I am personally inclined to support the observation of
Professor John Uhr, also of the Australian National University, that:

‘Accountability and responsibility are two parts of a larger whole: whoever
is ‘responsible for’ a policy or program is also ‘accountable to’ some
authority for their performance within their sphere of responsibility’.
67


In the Australian context, there is no suggestion on the part of the Government or
Parliament that accountability expectations will be downgraded; if anything, the
reforms suggest that additional authority and flexibility require enhanced
accountabilities, even where there may be an additional cost involved. Parliament’s
confidence in the accountability of public sector organisations is an on-going
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
22 of 44
challenge to our corporate governance frameworks. Nevertheless, in the words of a
long time academic reviewer of the changing nature of governance in Australia:

‘With the advent of entrepreneurial government and the enterprising state,
expressed most obviously in extensive forms of contracting-out, (these)
organizational boundaries and identities are less able to contain or limit the
accountability issue. Recent changes have stretched the elasticity of our
received notions of accountability to the breaking point.
68


I take the view that accountability of public sector operations depends to a great extent
on providing full information on the operations of agencies and other related bodies,
including their decision-making. In some situations, because of the nature and
complexity of public sector administration in an environment of ongoing reform
‘Additional transparency provisions may be a cost that we have to meet to ensure an
acceptable level of accountability’.
69
This leads me to transparency.

Transparency

‘Transparency is a sustaining element of effective accountability. It implies
that one can see clearly into the activities of government’.
70


Openness and transparency are essential elements of accountability, which is, rightly,
at the heart of an effective public governance environment making it easier for those
outside government to monitor and challenge the government’s performance for
consistency with policy intentions, for fairness, for propriety, and for sound
stewardship. As the US Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis, remarked: ‘sunlight
is the most powerful of all disinfectants’
71
. Contemporary concerns about
transparency are linked to those about integrity in public and business life.
Transparency of management decisions in the public sector is a recipe for better
corporate governance as summarised in the following observation:

‘Transparency is …a key element …and in vision of open executive
government as a necessary entailment of democracy and legality.
Transparency is central to contemporary discussions of both democratic
governance and public sector reform, since open access to information and
the elimination of secrecy is taken to be a condition for the prevention of
corruption and promoting public accountability’.
72


Also, Senator Hogg (a Member of the Committee of Public Accounts and Audit
(JCPAA) when commenting on the need to maintain scrutiny of government
operations, made the strong point that:

‘Public funds are not for the private purse of the government nor the
bureaucrats to do what they like with. They are public funds for public
purposes and should stand the test of public scrutiny by the Parliament’.
73


What are the important elements of transparency in the public sector? I will touch on
just two:

(a) The ability to report openly


CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
23 of 44
The Auditor-General, through the ANAO, provides an independent review of the
performance and accountability of the federal government public sector agencies and
entities. The Auditor-General Act 1997 provides a legislative framework for our
activities and establishes the Auditor-General as an independent officer of the
Parliament – a title that symbolises the Auditor-General’s independence and unique
relationship with the Parliament. My mandate extends to all Australian government
agencies, authorities, companies and subsidiaries (with the exception of performance
audits of GBEs and persons employed under the Members of Parliament Act 1994 –
however, performance audits can be conducted of wholly owned GBEs at the request
of the responsible Minister, the Finance Minister, or the JCPAA).
74


The increasing involvement of private sector entities in public sector activities has
increased the complexity of undertaking our performance audits. There are three
main interrelated concerns, namely: access to information, including transparent
explanations; requirements of public accountability, particularly with the use of
commercial-in-confidence arguments; and the possible consequences for a firm’s
reputation and market situation of any adverse comments on public sector
management and administrative practices. In all three cases, there is the addition of
legal complexity, which also adds to the cost of the audits.
An important element supporting my ability to report, without fear or favour, is the
application of Parliamentary privilege to performance and financial statement audit
reports tabled in the Parliament.

‘The provision of Parliamentary privilege is an essential element in
protecting the office of the Auditor-General so that it may provide a
fearless account of the activities of executive government’.
75


Such privilege, in turn, allows the Auditor-General to report freely, openly and
responsibly on matters examined in the course of audits. While the ANAO is
sensitive to private sector concerns about commercial reputations, the Parliament
expects full public accountability, particularly on issues of fair and ethical conduct
and protection of the public interest. Conflicts of private and public interest are not
new but their resolution in performance audit reports is a challenge for all parties
without a genuine shared understanding of what constitutes public accountability.
The ANAO is very sensitive to the notion of natural justice which it takes seriously as
part of engendering public confidence in its reports. However, I stress that means
natural justice for all
parties involved.

(b) Freedom of information


An essential characteristic of accountability is access to information. Virtually all
accountability relies on the ready availability of reliable and timely information.
Indeed, it has been said that ‘information is the lifeblood of accountability’.
76
Public
access to reliable information is supported in each Australian jurisdiction by Freedom
of Information (FOI) legislation.

Each public servant needs to understand clearly how their individual governance
behaviour can be exposed under FOI requirements, and by the investigations of
organisations such as the Ombudsman, the ANAO, the Privacy Commissioner and the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In this regard, good record-keeping and good audit
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
24 of 44
and management trails are not ‘bureaucratic’ in a pejorative sense. To the contrary,
they are a valuable management asset. They are also evidence of sound governance
processes and practices. In particular, they demonstrate transparency and
accountability to stakeholders. One important issue is the uncertainty of any
responsibility of private sector
providers under the relevant legislation, particularly
when they are holding public records. Resolution is often not as simple as
endeavouring to extend public sector accountability requirements to the private sector,
for example, through contractual conditions.

Whole-of-Government Issues

With citizens demanding the delivery of government programs and services should be
more coordinated and seamless, there has been push in Australia, and elsewhere, for a
whole of government approach to be adopted. A very recent Australian Government
report – Connecting Government: Whole of Government Responses to Australia’s
Priority Challenges
77
- defines whole of government in the APS as:

‘Whole of government denotes public service agencies working across
portfolio boundaries to achieve a shared goal and an integrated government
response to particular issues. Approaches can be formal or informal. They
can focus on policy development, program management and service
delivery’.
78


Clearly defined accountability arrangements are important for successful whole of
government initiatives. A particular challenge is to improve cross-agency
coordination and collaboration while maintaining vertical accountability.
79
The new
accountabilities and incentives encompass shared outcomes and reporting,
performance measures engaging collegiate behaviour, and reward and recognition for
horizontal management.
80


The introduction of accrual budgeting in 1999 improved the transparency of the
Australian Government’s financial position. This framework has been progressively
refined and work has been undertaken to examine the scope for the framework to
accommodate whole of government measures. Currently, outcomes are still
determined by agencies and individual ministers and outcomes have not been
disaggregated to the level of specific policy priorities as represented by individual
funding initiatives. The ANAO has suggested that broad (or shared) outcomes are
useful as they can involve contributions from a number of areas from within and
outside an agency. The key challenge is to identify the agency’s area of influence and
acknowledge this in performance measurement and annual reporting,
81
On the input
side, accrual information is necessary to ensure these contributions are accurately
measured and reflected in results.

Accountability to governance

Public sector organisations make decisions, every day, that significantly affect a
nation’s economic, social and cultural well-being. Also they manage significant
taxpayers dollars and oversee the delivery of key services such as health, education,
defence and welfare. Understandably, there has been increased focus on democratic
control through enhanced accountability. In the public sector, the main drivers for
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
25 of 44
this have been the heightened expectations of citizens, an increased focus on results
while retaining sound control systems, and a more robust scrutiny by parliament and
its committees.

In short, all public bodies are required to be transparent, responsive and accountable
for their activities. To borrow a term from Horace Rumpole
82
, ‘the golden thread’
running through public sector accountability has been the importance of transparency.
As Senator Abetz (Special Minister of State) has observed, ‘While accountability is
the foundation of good governance, transparency provides the windows.
Transparency also provides answers to the critical issue of trust.’
83
Accrual
accounting is one key tool
which supports enhanced accountability mechanism by
providing a better quality of information for decision-making, as well as being an
integral component of good financial information in government. The increased focus
on results, as well as on performance based management by the public sector, and the
emergence of alternative delivery approaches for government services, only reinforces
the need for enhanced accountability underpinned
by credible and timely information
– accrual based information is a ‘front row’ contributor in this regard.

This ‘golden thread’ runs through accountability to corporate governance, with good
corporate governance embracing improved performance and enhanced accountability.
I will now follow the ‘golden thread’ through to its culmination – corporate
governance – which, in turn, contributes to sound public sector management. As well,
continuing with my broader theme, a key driver in corporate governance is the quality
of information leading to effective decision-making and debate on saignificant
decisions.


IV Public Sector Governance

As noted earlier, the shrinking gap between the public and private sectors, and other
external trends, have added a new level of complexity to traditional accountability
frameworks. This has reinforced the importance of implementing robust and
responsive corporate governance frameworks. Andrew Podger, the Australian Public
Service Commissioner, recently launched a $A1.4 million research project –
Corporate Governance in the Public Sector: An Evaluation of the tensions, Gaps and
Potential – which aims to develop an integrated framework for corporate governance
and tailor guidance according to the type of organisation.
84
The study will be
undertaken by the University of Canberra and key government and industry partners –
the ANAO is a partner in the study. Professor John Halligan, one of the academics
undertaking the study, made the point at the launch that:

‘Good public corporate governance relies on keeping pace with best practice
in the private sector corporate governance. That is, harnessing the potential
that corporate governance principles can offer. Importantly, however, it also
requires an understanding of the tensions and gaps that arise in the
transposition of corporate governance from the private to the public sector,
so that public sector corporate governance can be modified accordingly’
85


Fundamentally, good governance arrangements are essential for an organisation to be
able to demonstrate to stakeholders that it can be trusted to do what it is established to
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
26 of 44
do. Such arrangements assist stakeholders to have confidence that APS organisations
not only have the competence and expertise required, but that they have also
established robust administrative arrangements that enable them to do so efficiently,
effectively and ethically. Good governance generally focuses on two main
requirements of organisations:


performance, whereby the organisation uses its governance arrangements to
contribute to its overall performance and the delivery of its goods, services or
programs; and


conformance, whereby the organisation uses its governance arrangements to
ensure it meets the requirements of the law, regulations, published standards
and community expectations of probity, accountability and openness.

Organisations need to achieve both sets of objectives, and not simply attempt to trade
one off against the other. Using an integrated risk management framework will help
develop an effective control environment and provide reasonable assurance that the
organisation will achieve both objectives, within an acceptable degree of risk. As one
commentator observed:

‘The public-sector debate continues to be on how best to balance efficiency
and value for money with the core values public-sector values of
accountability and due process. New laws governing different types of
Australian public-sector agencies have reflected this challenge. The private-
sector focus has been on ensuring the drive for profit does not compromise
standards of corporate behaviour. But what’s also interesting is the similar
change in the long-term focus of governance in both sectors.. the sectors
clearly borrow ideas from each other. How they put these ideas into practice
has an impact on the other sector’.
86


Notwithstanding this convergence of the two sectors what are the unique aspects of
the public sector? A good starting point is the legislative framework (under which the
Australian federal public sector operates) and the different types of entities that
operate within that framework. This will, hopefully, put the following discussion into
context.

The Australian Public Sector’s Legislative Framework

The Australian government public sector has an extensive legal, regulative and policy
framework that regulate the activities of the Australian Public Service, Boards, Chief
Executive Officers and their staff. Importantly, that framework starts with the
Australian Constitution, with the more detailed legal basis for governance in the APS
is largely derived from the:

Financial Management and Accountability (FMA) Act 1997;

Commonwealth Authorities and Companies (CAC) Act 1997; and

Public Service Act 1999

However, the formal framework for corporate governance goes beyond these three
Acts to include the broader constitutional powers affecting public sector powers,
appropriations and responsibilities as well as supporting legislation such as the
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
27 of 44
Workplace Relations Act 1996, Administrative Arrangements Orders, the
Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, any enabling legislation of an organisation and
other legislation. This formidable body of law is depicted in the following diagram.

Figure 1: Legal elements affecting governance in the Federal Public Sector

State/Terr’y assoc’ns &
partnerships law
Contract, insurance,
trust, principal/agent,
confidentiality law
Agency
Specific
Acts
Cth Authorities
& Companies
Act ’97
Corporations
Act 2001
Auditor-General Act 1997
Accountability: Ombudsman, Privacy, FOI, AAT, ADJR, Archives & Judiciary Acts
Acts Interpretation, Trade Practices, OH&S and Crimes Acts + specific secrecy laws
Parliament, its
committees, privilege
and conventions
Public
Service
Act 1999
Responsible & representative government
Workplace
Relations
Act 1996
Annual and
specific
Appropriations
by Parliament
Charter of
Budget Honesty
Separation
of Powers
Administrative
Arrangement
Orders
Remuneration
Tribunal Act 1973
Financial
Management and
Accountability
Act 1997
Australian Constitution
Australian Constitution
eg, s.51, 53, 54, 61, 64, 67, 81, 83

Source: Department of Finance and Administration (2002)
87


In addition to this legislation, government entities are subject to a variety of
regulations and policies which also impact on their governance, such as the budgetary
outcomes and outputs reporting regime, the growing emphasis on risk management
and insurable risk, and the need for effective coordination of Whole-of-Government
and inter-agency issues as well as across levels of government, including the role of
the Council of Australian Governments (COAG).

Dealing with the complexity of corporate governance in the public Sector

While the increasing convergence of the public and private sectors has drawn together
many common concepts and approaches to sound corporate governance there are still
inherent differences between the governance of private and public sector entities. In
the public sector, quite complex relationships can exist between those with primary
accountability responsibilities, especially the Parliament, Ministers, the CEO and
boards. Consequently, there can be far greater management complexity in terms of
stewardship, accountability and legislative requirements than is the norm in the
private sector. In addition, the public sector typically has more explicit and stringent
value systems that emphasise legislatively based notions of ethics and codes of
conduct. For example, as observed by Professor Richard Mulgan of the Australian
National University:

‘…private sector companies operating under private law are not
normally held to the same common law standards of rationality and
fairness that the public law imposes on government agencies under the
principles of administrative law’.
88


CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
28 of 44
Public sector managers have a particular responsibility to the Government and to the
Parliament to help ensure that accepted notions of responsibility, accountability and
performance, including results, are being properly adhered to. This is a recognition of
the supremacy of the Government and the Parliament in the governance framework. I
have attempted to capture the concept of traditional accountability and interaction
between the various players in the following simple diagram.

Figure 2: Governance Framework



















Source
: ANAO
89


The executive government is held accountable by the Parliament and by the voting
public through elected members. Public servants are accountable to their Ministers
and through them to the Parliament. The executive is also held accountable legally by
an independent judiciary or other independent quasi-judicial bodies applying
administrative law to the actions or decisions of the members of the executive.
90


In some ways corporate governance is often relatively more straightforward in the
private sector as the roles and responsibilities are more clearly defined and generally
involve a narrower range of active stakeholders and less complex objectives and
strategies. To illustrate this proposition I have used the following two diagrams to
show the main components and structures of corporate governance in the federal
public sector. The first, Figure 3, is drawn from the state arena but provides a good
representation of the components of public sector governance generally.
Figure 3: Components of public sector governance

1. GOVERNANCE
A
D
V
I
S
E
R
S
M
E
D
I
A
GOVERNMENT JUDICIARY PARLIAMENT
Ministers
PUBLIC SERVICE
Legislation
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
29 of 44

Public
accessibility
to information
Corporate governance in
the public sector
Public governance
Strategic
leadership
Board
independence
Values and codes
of ethics
Board structures,

systems and
processes
Evaluation

and reporting

Public
accessibility
to information
Corporate governance in
the public sector
Public governance
Strategic
leadership
Board
independence
Values and codes
of ethics
Board structures,

systems and
processes
Evaluation

and reporting



Source: Victorian Public Accounts and Estimates Committee 2002, Issues Paper: Inquiry into Corporate Governance
in the Victorian Public Sector, Melbourne, April, p. 8.

The second, Figure 4, indicates the main governance structures in the federal arena
drawn from the ANAO’s widely acknowledged corporate governance Better Practice
Guide,
91
on which I will have more to say shortly.

Figure 4: Structures of governance in the federal public sector


C o r p o r a t i o n
m o d e l

D e p a r t m e n t o f
s t a t e m o d e l
M i x e d m o d e l s
P u b l i c
c o r p o r a t i o n s,
i n c l u d i n g m o s t
G B E s
S t a t u t o r y
a u t h o r i t i e s, m a n y
n o n - d e p a r t m e n t a l
g o v e r n m e n t b o d i e s
D e p a r t m e n t s o f
s t a t e, s o m e
E x e c u t i v e
A g e n c i e s
C o r p o r a t i o n s A c t
a p p l i e s a n d/o r
G B E u n d e r t h e
C A C A c t
C o m b i n a t i o n o f
C A C A c t a n d
a g e n c y- s p e c i f i c
l e g i s l a t i o n –
s o m e t i m e s w i t h
e l e m e n t s o f P S a n d
F M A A c t s
P S A c t, F M A A c t,
s o m e t i m e s w i t h
a g e n c y- s p e c i f i c
l e g i s l a t i o n
A s a t J u n e 2 0 0 3,
t h e r e w e r e 3 2
o r g a n i s a t i o n s i n
t h i s c a t e g o r y
A s a t J u n e 2 0 0 3,
t h e r e w e r e 8 3
o r g a n i s a t i o n s i n
t h i s c a t e g o r y
A s a t J u n e 2 0 0 3,
t h e r e w e r e 8 1
o r g a n i s a t i o n s i n
t h i s c a t e g o r y

S
OURCE
:

D
EPARTMENT OF
F
INANCE AND
A
DMINISTRATION
,

L
IST OF
B
ODIES
S
UBJECT TO THE
CAC

A
CT
1997

(
AS
AT
S
EPTEMBER
2002)
AND
L
IST OF
A
GENCIES
S
UBJECT TO THE
FMA

A
CT
1997

(M
AY
2002).

For the ‘Department of State Model’
(FMA agencies) the governance arrangements
differ significantly from those of private sector corporations. The FMA Act prescribes
that CEOs of FMA agencies are ultimately accountable for the performance of the
agency, generally making them effectively the CEO and Chairman of the Board. That
is, the emphasis is on accountability residing with the chief executive and, as
discussed previously, while the chief executive may choose to appoint an advisory
board to help with the management of an agency, these boards support the CEO rather
than the CEO being held accountable by the board. Instead, the CEO is responsible
directly to the Minister, who is the shareholder or citizen representative, or ‘trustee’ in
the view of some political commentators.

CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
30 of 44
In contrast, the ‘Corporation Model’
(GBEs and Commonwealth corporations) are
subject to the Corporations Act, the CAC Act (and, for Commonwealth GBEs,
Governance Arrangements for Commonwealth Government Business Enterprises)
with the added complexity of Ministerial responsibilities and oversight. Whereas
publicly-listed private companies are subject to the Corporations Act and tend to have
much more clearly defined and unambiguous Board accountabilities and
responsibilities. CAC type agencies are also often required to meet broader
government policy objectives, such as delivering ‘value-based’ services, or prescribed
services, to selected clients, in addition to meeting financial objectives. While
convergence between the two sectors is lessening such differences, it nevertheless
highlights the variations in modern governance demands across organisations, both
within and across sectors of the economy.

Interposed between these two models is the ‘Mixed Model’
which covers a large
number of statutory bodies, mostly but not entirely subject to the CAC Act, that also
operate under specific legislation. In many cases, this specific legislation dictates the
structure, make-up, appointment arrangements, planning and reporting for the body,
its board and/or its chief executive. This categorisation of Commonwealth
organisations is not mutually exclusive. For example, some Commonwealth bodies
subject to the CAC Act are also subject to provisions of the FMA Act relating to
public money that they hold (as is the case with the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission).

Principles of public sector governance

There is increasing evidence that behaviours consistent with good governance sustain
improvements in organisational performance.
92
This requires the application of
effective governance principles by management and staff within each organisation to
implement the designated governance frameworks, controls and guidelines.

The ANAO, in Better Practice Guide (BPG)
93
, used the group of principles first
articulated by the Nolan Committee of the UK in 1995.
94
They are:


accountability: where public sector organisations and the individuals within
them are responsible for their decisions and actions, and where they are
subject to external scrutiny;

transparency, or openness: is required to ensure that stakeholders have
confidence in the decisions and actions of public sector organisations and the
individuals within them;

integrity: is based on honesty, objectivity, and high standards of propriety and
probity in the stewardship of public funds and resources;

stewardship: reflects the fact that public officials exercise their powers on
behalf of the nation, and that the resources they use are held in trust and are
not privately owned;

leadership: is one of the more crucial principles. It sets the tone at the top of
the organisation, and is absolutely critical to achieving an organisation-wide
commitment to good governance; and
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
31 of 44

efficiency: is about the best use of resources to achieve the goals of the
organisation, and is also about being able to prove that the organisation has
indeed made the best use of public resources.

The application of these principles, within an appropriate public sector governance
framework tailored to the characteristics of each entity, will assist public sector
entities to conform with all relevant legislation and policies, and moreover, perform
strongly against their specified objectives and required results.

Public sector governance framework, processes and practices

The legislative requirements outlined in Figure 1, together with requirements for high
organisational performance, demand that public sector entities’ establish and operate
an extensive, but integrated system of governance.

To illustrate the key, generally accepted, organisational and process elements of good
public sector governance, the ANAO’s BPG adapted a model developed by the
Queensland Department of Transport—‘The House of Governance’ (Figure 5). This is
a broad-based model that recognises the elements of good public sector governance
need to be applied within government frameworks that may differ considerably
according to the size, complexity, structure and legislative background of the
organisations concerned.

The model emphasises the progression from the foundation of leadership, ethical
conduct and a culture that is committed to achieving good public sector governance,
through good stakeholder management and development of a risk management
culture, to the performance and conformance windows. On top of that, information
and decision support, and review and evaluation of governance arrangements, impact
heavily on the ability of the public sector organisation to achieve desired governance
outcomes—relating to both conformance and performance.

Implementing, maintaining and enhancing the elements shown the following diagram
maximises the chances that the organization will enjoy the confidence of its
stakeholders, clients, staff and management and that it will be recognised as making
sound, well informed and accountable decisions that lead to appropriate and effective
actions and results. The foundations elements of leadership, ethical conduct and the
development and existence of an organisational performance culture support and
sustain the framework as a whole. Without them, there would be no solid foundation
to build on. Stakeholder relationships influence the effectiveness of all three central
components of the structure, that is, the ‘windows’ of internal conformance and
accountability, external conformance and accountability, and planning and
performance monitoring.
Figure 5: The house of public sector governance
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
32 of 44
Governance Outcomes:
Confidence in the or
g
anisatio
n
Leadership, Ethics and Culture - Commitment to Good Public
Sector Governance
Stakeholder Relationships (External & Internal)
Information and Decision Support
Review and Evaluation of Governance Arrangements

Planning &
Performance
Monitoring


Internal
Conformance &
Accountability


External
Conformance &
Accountability
Risk Management

Source: ANAO , Better Practice Guide on Public Sector Governance. Adapted from a model developed by the Queensland
Department of Transport in its Corporate Governance Framework for Queensland Transport and Main Roads: Final Report,
July 2001.
The ‘windows’ in the house represent the core activities of governance for
government organisations. They are the elements on which governance boards and
committees are focused. Each ‘window’ exerts an influence on the other two as
follows:


planning and performance monitoring
underpin the management framework
within which external and internal conformance and accountability processes
take place - accountability is integral to the performance of public
organisations;


internal conformance and accountability
needs to be aligned with, and
generate the information required for, external conformance and
accountability; and


external conformance and accountability
establishes the base line for required
internal processes, as information required for external purposes should
generally form a subset of what is required internally.
95


The challenge for many agencies is to find a credible way to integrate the various
elements of public sector governance into a unified, mutually reinforcing complete
structure. This involves a consistent, strategic approach to governance so that good
governance practice is successfully integrated with, and supports, the way Australian
Government entities do business.
96
Good governance should not only be found at the
corporate level, it should also be apparent to all staff and evident in their behaviour
and attitudes in the workplace at all levels of the organisation.

Recent initiatives to improve governance in both the public and private sectors

CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
33 of 44
In response to the corporate governance failures in recent major corporate collapses, a
number of high-profile efforts to improve corporate governance in Australia occurred
in 2003. These included the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) Corporate Governance
Council’s Principles of Good Corporate Governance released in March 2003
97
, the
HIH Royal Commission report in May 2003 and Standards Australia release of a new
standard—AS 8000-2003 on Good Governance Principles
98
in July 2003. The Senate
passed two bills to amend the Corporations Act 2001. The Corporate Law Economic
Reform Program (Audit Reform & Corporate Disclosure) Bill 2003
99
(passed in June
2004) was introduced into Parliament on 4 December 2003 and John Uhrig completed
his review into corporate governance of statutory and office holders (but still under
consideration by government).
100
In addition, the ANAO published its BPG on
‘Public Sector Governance’ in July 2003.

Overseas, there has been the release (12 January 2004) of the Review of the OECD
Principles of Corporate Governance—Invitation to Comment and the OECD’s Survey
of Corporate Governance Developments in OECD Countries (9 December 2003) as
part of an assessment of OECD Principles of Corporate Governance requested by
Ministers in 2002. With the increased questioning of, and emphasis on, good
corporate behaviour and performance, we are likely to see a continuance of such
interest both nationally and internationally.

In our sphere of influence, the ANAO looks to be proactive in providing on-going
advice and support to agencies in establishing and maintaining a sound corporate
governance framework. A significant challenge for the ANAO is ensuring the
Australian Government’s interests are protected and accountability is maintained for
the expenditure of public funds in an environment where significant aspects of the
delivery of public sector outcomes involve complex, long-term arrangements with the
private sector.

Improving public sector governance

The ANAO has long recognised that governance practices often strongly influence the
performance and accountability of APS agencies - we are in a key position to add
value to the APS through the dissemination of better practices as part of its audit
program. Specifically, the ANAO has provided a series of BPGs on public sector
governance. The first such guide was released in 1997 and promoted governance
principles and better practices in budget-funded agencies.
101
A complementary guide
was released in 1999, examining governance in Commonwealth authorities and
companies.
102
The third and latest guide
103
was released on 25 July 2003. It discusses
better practice governance for all types of APS organisations.

The new guide is different in nature to the previous two, which were structured to
address specific purposes. The first guide dealt with the application of governance in
public sector agencies and, in particular, made the case for the establishment of
executive boards for agencies. The ANAO issued the second guide as a discussion
paper in 1999, which was designed to assist members of the boards and senior
managers of CAC Act bodies to evaluate their governance frameworks and make
them more effective.

CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
34 of 44
With the publication of the third, and current, guide the scope has widened again - it
provides more practical guidance. While the latest guide incorporates recent
legislative changes and reflects current concerns, the previous two guides remain
useful, as the practices and principles they endorse continue to provide the
foundations of better practice public sector governance.

The ANAO has produced these guides on public sector governance to provide some
clarity for organisations that may be audited, but also because there have been few
alternative sources of better practice information on governance focussed on the
public sector. While there has been quite a rapid increase in documented guidance on
‘corporate governance’, especially by professional bodies, such as the Australian
Institute of Company Directors and the Institute of Chartered Secretaries (Australia),
and by legal firms, these remain mainly directed towards private sector needs and
requirements. The ANAO will continue to provide guidance on public sector
governance in the future on major emerging governance issues.

Public Sector Governance - Leadership, ethics and culture


As with other commentators, I constantly emphasise the importance of leaders (Chief
Executive Officers and Boards) to set the ‘tone at the top’ of organisations to
positively influence good governance. While rules, systems and structures are
certainly important, they are the vehicles by which crucial values and behaviours are
applied.
104
Good governance is primarily a function of the behaviours and values of
the organisation’s leaders and is a manifestation of the overall culture of the
organisation. In particular, it is important that leaders demonstrate an active
commitment to the principles of good public sector governance, and vital that staff
adopt good governance practices through their own behaviour and performance.

Establishing effective communication—both internally and externally—is therefore a
primary function of leadership. It is through clear and consistent communication of
the values and objectives of the organisation to staff, management and external
stakeholders that an agency’s leadership most effectively supports good governance
outcomes and contributes to stakeholder confidence in the organisation.

It is also through consistent communication and personal actions that leaders support
ethical behaviour in the organisation, thus influencing the culture necessary to support
the objectives and strategic directions of the organisation and achieve the required
results efficiently, effectively and ethically.

Public Sector Governance - Risk management and the control environment


Risk management is an integral component of good governance that underpins the
organisation’s approaches to achieving both performance and conformance
objectives.

Risk management involves the identification, analysis, treatment, monitoring and
communicating of risks. In the public sector, risks are generally taken to represent
threats rather than opportunities. That is, risks are identified as events that may
prevent the achievement of business objectives much more frequently than events that
may provide the opportunity to achieve additional benefits. Organisations in the
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
35 of 44
public sector need to more frequently and comprehensively consider beneficial risks,
as this would assist them to become less risk averse, and thereby enable them to more
fully embrace the performance aspects of their conformance and performance
objectives.

The ultimate responsibility for an organisation’s risk management sits with the head
of that organisation. But all managers and staff have a responsibility to manage risk.
Effective risk management requires a risk assessment culture, which supports a
holistic approach to the identification and management of risk throughout an
organisation. This means that risk management should be seamlessly integrated into
the day-to-day business of an organisation as well as being part of its higher-level
strategy and planning processes.

This concept of risk management is particularly important as the nature and
significance of risks change in the public sector as the role of the public sector itself
changes. The lack of suitable risk management practices generally features in
examples of poor administration that are highlighted in our audit reports from time to
time. An example of such changes is the greater involvement of the private sector in
delivering public sector services and notions of risk sharing, as noted earlier.

Importantly, an integrated risk management system develops the control environment
and control activities, which provide reasonable assurance that the organisation will
achieve its objectives with an acceptable degree of residual risk. Taking this approach
to risk management can ultimately mean that all major decisions are considered in
terms of sound risk management principles. For public officials, there is also a need
to understand, and deal effectively with, the notion of insurable risk.

It is difficult to over-emphasise the importance of integrating an organisation’s
approach to control with its overall risk management strategy in order to determine
and prioritise the agency functions and activities that need to be controlled. Both
require similar disciplines and an emphasis on a systematic approach involving
identification, analysis, assessment, treatment and monitoring of risks. Control
activities to mitigate risk need to be well designed and implemented and relevant
information regularly collected and communicated throughout the organisation.

Management also needs to establish ongoing monitoring of performance to ensure
that objectives are being achieved and that control activities are operating effectively.
The results should be regularly reported to the Board/CEO for information and any
guidance or direction, including considering whether controls are effective and if not,
how they should be adjusted. An audit committee should have particular interests in
these issues which should also regularly feature on their meeting agendas.

The key to developing an effective control framework lies in achieving the right

balance so that the control environment is not unnecessarily restrictive nor unduly
encouraging to risk adverse behaviour and, indeed, aims to promote sound risk
management.

The control structure must provide a linkage between the agency’s strategic objectives
and the functions and tasks undertaken to achieve those objectives. A good
governance model will include a control and reporting regime which is geared to the
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
36 of 44
achievement of the organisation’s objectives and which adds value by focusing control
efforts largely on the ‘big picture’ and not simply on particular processes.

Finally, it must be kept in mind that control is basically a process, a means to an end,
and not an end in itself. It impacts on the whole agency; it is the responsibility of
everyone in the agency; and is effected by staff at all levels, not just by management.
Effective control is neither accidental nor incidental. It is fundamental to
accountability and performance. Indeed, it has been suggested that boards should
formally accept their responsibility for reviewing the effectiveness of internal
control.
105


From Accountability to Public Sector Governance

As I have worked through the public governance issues, it is clear that there are a
number of key elements in developing a sound governance framework. As I see it,
financial management and accrual information is an enabler
for improved governance
arrangements and returning to my ‘golden thread’ theme, it is a key driver in
providing quality information which leads to effective decision-making and a more
informed debate on key decisions.

Reliable and complete information must be routinely available on performance and
consumption of resources used in delivering government services. This should cover
not only cash expenditure but also how the investment in assets and work in progress
is used to provide assurance that the resources are deployed efficiently and
effectively. Such information and analysis provide agencies with the means to make
better use of their existing resources and also to identify and manage important risks.
In turn, this imposes a discipline on public sector managers to ensure assets are put to
good use and liabilities are identified and managed.

The new corporate governance challenge for CEOs and CFOs is that they are
increasingly being held accountable for external financial reporting and corporate
governance. Clearly, this requires a heightened awareness of, and involvement in,
these areas. The Australian Stock Exchange Corporate Governance Principles (4 and
7) and CLERP 9 include requirements that put the onus on CEOs and CFOs to ensure
that they have adequate systems in place to enable them to sign off with confidence.
106
If this requirement were to flow onto public sector agency heads and their chief
finance officers, accrual information would be an even greater imperative, as it is in
the private sector, in providing that certification in respect of the financial statements
and governance arrangements. As Jeffrey Lucy, acting Chair of the Australian
Securities & Investments Commission, observed recently:

‘One of the foundations of good governance is the provision of adequate,
timely and reliable information about corporate performance’
107


Increasingly, it is the financial management framework, with its emphasis on accrual
accounting and budgeting, that will be required to provide that information. The
emphasis will not only be on knowing and understanding the costs of what we do, but
also on how well we manage our financial responsibilities reflected in our financial
reporting, such as the efficient management of our assets and liabilities on an accrual
basis. Cash management will also continue to be of importance but will be only one
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
37 of 44
aspect for which we will be held accountable as part of our overall governance
responsibilities.

V Concluding Remarks


The evolution of the public sector, under successive internal reforms and external
pressures, is presenting significant challenges to agencies and has profoundly affected
the way in which they operate today. New challenges are ever present, notably those
that relate to the adoption of new technology, the growing convergence of the public
and private sectors, the ‘whole of government’ approach, and the effects of
globalisation. Thus, in today’s rapidly changing public and private sector
environments, the rising demands for corporate accountability, including
transparency; dealing pro-actively with new risks associated with globalisation; and
implementing e-commerce and evolving information technologies as important
elements of managing and conducting business; have propelled corporate governance
into the ‘mainstream’ of public, political and business awareness. Organisations now
face intense public scrutiny of their business workings to a degree not seen before, for
example, investors and citizens expect more than just compliance with the new
‘rules’. They simply want better governance overall.

There is no doubt that changes in the areas of accounting, budgeting and governance,
have had a far-reaching influence on the day-to-day operations of Australian
Government entities. Indeed, there is still work ahead for the APS to fulfil the
accounting and budgetary requirements and goals that have been set by the
Government, Parliament and the professional accounting, auditing and standards
bodies—both national and international. It is my observation that these will
increasingly occur in tandem with the private sector, reflecting real notions of
partnering using common accounting, budgeting and auditing concepts, practices and
procedures. In addition, there is a greater emphasis on the structural elements of the
varying governance frameworks ranging from core government departments to non-
core government corporations, with publicly listed shares, in full commercial
competition. In particular, there are issues of accountability relationships that have to
be resolved.

Undoubtedly one of the most significant changes to the overall financial reform
program in the APS was the implementation of accrual-based accounting and the
associated outputs and outcomes budgetary framework. While I have included some
comments on the challenges and difficulties with the implementation of accrual
accounting, I want to put on the record my acknowledgment of the major achievement
represented by the implementation of this accrual model, both by Department of
Finance and Administration, as the driver of the change, and by public sector
agencies, as its implementers. It is also important to acknowledge the support
provided by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and the Senate
References Committee on Finance and Public Administration to the adoption of the
accrual budgeting framework.

The accrual budgeting framework has required a significant investment from public
sector agencies and has achieved some notable results—it has changed the focus of
public sector financial management from being narrowly focussed on inputs to one
more based on the outputs and outcomes managed by agencies. In short, there has
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
38 of 44
been a real emphasis on results. Nevertheless, as with the private sector following a
number of well publicised corporate collapses, the public has had to pay increasing
attention to its control environment and the need for public assurance in this respect.

Accrual based information has enhanced transparency and accountability in the public
sector. I referred earlier in to Robert Behn’s ‘accountability dilemma’ reflecting the
need to achieve the ‘right balance’ between conformance and performance. I contend
that this dilemma is further complicated by the Parliament’s and Government’s
insistence on holding agencies accountable for performance where the services are
primarily, or wholly, being delivered by the private sector. That, in itself,
complicates the governance relationships and approaches taken by both sectors even
where there is an increasing sharing of, and commitment to, sound corporate
governance concepts, principles and practices.
A wider issue is how we address questions such as the government’s impact on the
environment, the quality of assets provided to the community by the government, and
the intellectual capital available to the community from within government. The
growing global trend towards corporate social responsibility and sustainability signals
a new approach to business and its method of reporting. Recently, CPA Australia’s
Audit and Assurance Centre of Excellence published a database on their web site of
over 160 companies worldwide that prepare Triple Bottom Line (TBL) reports
accompanying their financial reports. This database provides information about these
reports, including a listing of those providing TBL audit services. This commitment
to TBL by CPA Australia, and indeed, also by the Institute of Chartered Accountants
in Australia, shows the increasing importance of this type of reporting as a means for
Chief Executives to discharge their accountability.
There are many definitions and explanations of what TBL is and what it stands for.
Mark Sullivan, the Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services
(FaCS), defines TBL and its uses as follows
108
:
TBL focuses on reporting and making decisions explicitly taking into
consideration information on economic, environmental and social
performance. As such TBL can be seen as both an internal
management tool as well as an external reporting framework.
While TBL reporting is not new to the private sector, it is a new concept for the public
sector. In 2003, FaCS prepared the first-ever verified TBL in the Australian
Government sector. This year, FaCS will again prepare a TBL for verification by the
ANAO. As well, the Department of Environment and Heritage will prepare its first
TBL report for 2003-2004.

Emerging developments such as triple bottom line reporting, and the reporting of
intellectual capital, take us a good deal further than where we are today.
Governments and their accountants can ignore these latter developments in favour of
the more limited picture provided by traditional financial reporting models, or they
can take a leading role in their implementation. Despite governments’ late start in
the accrual environment, it might be time to take a more complementary role in
making financial statement reporting more meaningful and useful in these wider
respects. It would obviously be better to anticipate, rather than react to, user
demands in the interests of greater accountability for performance as required of a
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
39 of 44
more responsive public sector. The imperative is to be clear as to what purposes
consolidated government financial statements are meant to serve. There is no doubt
we can, and should, improve their usefulness in coverage, consistency and
simplicity. This is as much a challenge for the profession as it is for account
preparers and auditors. The general public should expect no less.

Finally, I have endeavoured to highlight that the various federal public service
reforms over the past twenty years have narrowed the differences in governing and
managing both the public and private sectors. However, we will do well to bear in
mind the importance of ‘politics’ in the public sector environment, with all its
complexity and uncertainty. Nevertheless, that is what makes public administration
so interesting and demanding. I will leave you with this observation from Senator
Abetz (Special Minister of State):

Whether you are working in the public or the private sector, good
corporate governance is paramount to the sustainability, credibility, and
success of your organization. Travelling the road of good corporate
governance won’t guarantee success, but not travelling upon it, will
almost certainly guarantee failure.
109




CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
40 of 44
NOTES AND REFERENCES

1
Mackenroth, The Hon Terry, MP, 2004, Corporate Governance in the Queensland public
sector, Chartered Secretaries Australia, March, Vol 56 N0. 2, p. 81
2
Weller, Patrick, 2001, Australia’s Mandarins: the frank and the fearless, Allen & Unwin
3
Ibid, p.9
4
Ibid, p.8
5
Ibid, p.9
6
Shergold, Dr Peter, 2003, Two Cheers for the Bureaucracy: Public Service, Political Advice
and Network Governance, an address to the Public Service Commission Lunchtime Seminar,
13 June, p1, found at www.dpmc.gov.au/docs/Shergold
7
ANAO Audit Report, No. 61, 2002-03, Control Structures as part of the Audit of Financial
Statements of Major Commonwealth Entities for the Year Ending 30 June 2003, 30 June
2003.
8
Weller, Patrick, 2001, Australia’s Mandarins: the frank and the fearless, Op.cit
9
Barton, Professor Allan, The Australian Department of Defence – Australia’s Most Profitable
Business?, Australian Accounting Review, Vol 13, No 2, 2003 and The Use and Abuse of
Accounting in the Public Sector Financial Management Reform Process, National Institute of
Economics and Business, Public Lecture, 4 June 2003, and Dean, Carnegie, Garry & West,
Brian, How Well Does Accrual Accounting Fit the Public Sector?, Australian Journal of
Public Administration, June 2003
10
Report of the Auditor General of Canada , 2004, Chapter 6 : Managing Government Using
Financial Information, Ottawa, March, p. 11
11
Weller, Patrick, 2001, Australia’s Mandarins: the frank and the fearless, Op.cit , p.152
12
Barton, Prof Allan, 2003, The Use and Abuse of Accounting in the Public Sector Financial
management Reform Process, National Institute of Economics and Business, Public Lecture, 4
June, pp. 5-6
13
Ibid, p. 6
14
Behn, Robert D, 2001, Rethinking Democratic Accountability, Op.cit, p. 26
15
English, Linda & Guthrie, James, 2003, Driving privately financed projects in Australia:
what makes them tick? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal Vol 16, No 3, p. 498
16
CPA Australia, 2003, Striking the Balance: Effective Balance Sheet Management in the Public
Sector, p. 6
17
Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, 2002, Review of the Accrual Budget
Documentation, Report 388, Canberra, June, pp. 2-3.
18
Estimates Memorandum 2003/19 - Budget Estimates And Framework Review - Proposals For
Additional Resourcing For Review Implementation
19
Rowland, Michael, 2004, Companies fuming at new global accounting standards, an
interview with Sir David Tweedie, on the ABC radio program PM, hosted by Mark Colvin, 2
April
20
Senior, Antonia 2004. EU Defers Accounting Standards. The Australian, 4 February, p.23
21
Walters, Kath and Andrews, Bruce 2004. Standards fightback Accounting. Business Review
Weekly, 12 February, p.36.
22
Walters, Kath 2004. ASIC warns recalcitrants Accounting. Business Review Weekly, 12
February p.38
23
Newberry, S 2003, “Forum: Change in the Public Sector ‘‘Sector Neutrality’ and NPM
incentives’: their use in eroding the public sector” Australian Accounting Review, Volume 13
Number 2 2003, CPA Australia, Melbourne.
24
“AASB’s plans for adopting IASB standards by 2005”, last updated 17 February 2004, page 4,
available from www.aasb.com.au
.
25
Jones, Stewart and Wolnizer, Peter W 2003, Harmonisation and the Conceptual Framework:
An International Perspective, Abacus Vol 39 No 3, pp 379-380.
26
Ibid, p 377.
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
41 of 44

27
Wells, Murray 2003. Forum: The Accounting Conceptual Framework, ABACUS Vol 39 No
3 p.278
28
GAAP/GFS Convergence: Implementing the FRC Strategic Direction, published at
www.aasb.com.au
,.
29
System of National Accounts SNA93

30
Brett Kaufmann, 2004, Setting A Single Framework, Chartered Accountants, June, pp.66-67
31

The following explanation of timing differences and permanent differences is provided in the
AASB’s GFS/GAAP Convergence plan, available from www.aasb.com.au
:
“Timing differences relate to those items that affect the GFS and GAAP operating results
in different periods. For example, defence weapons platforms are treated as expenses in
the year of acquisition under GFS but are not recognised as expenses until later years
(through depreciation or impairment) under GAAP. Permanent differences relate to those
items that affect only one of the GFS or GAAP operating results. For example, dividends
paid are treated as an expense under GFS but are treated as a distribution to owners
under GAAP (and therefore will not affect the GAAP operating result in the current or
future years)
.”
32
Brett Kaufmann, 2004, Setting A Single Framework, Op.cit, pp. 66-67
33
For further details, refer to the AASB’s plans for convergence in their document ‘GAAP/GFS
Convergence: Implementing the FRC Strategic Direction’ available from www.aasb.com.au
.
34
GAAP/GFS Convergence: Implementing the FRC Strategic Direction, published at
www.aasb.com.au
, amended 18 December 2003.
35
Response from CPA Australia to Australian Accounting Standards Board in relation to
GAAP/GFS Convergence Project Advisory Panel, dated 30 January 2004, available at
http://www.cpaaustralia.com.au/01_information_centre/13_ext_report/1_13_0_11_news.asp
36
Barton, Prof Allan, 2003, The Use and Abuse of Accounting in the Public Sector Financial
management Reform Process, National Institute of Economics and Business, Public Lecture, 4
June, p. 11
37
Ibid, p. 10
38
Lawson, Mark, 2004, Companies can go broke making a profit, Australian Financial Review,
10 June, Special Report, p2
39
Barton Prof Allan, 2003, The Department of Defence – Australia’s Most Profitable Business?,
Op.cit.
40
Barton, Prof Allan, 2003, The Use and Abuse of Accounting in the Public Sector Financial
management Reform Process, Op.cit, pp. 17-18
41
Barton Prof Allan, 2003, The Department of Defence – Australia’s Most Profitable Business?,
Op.cit, p 35
42
Ibid, p 35
43
Craig, Russell, 2002, A Case of accounting overkill?, April, p.1. Found at
www.cpaaustralia.com.au/ _publications/02
44
Ibid, p.1
45
Ibid, p.2
46
CPA Australia, 2003, Striking the Balance: Effective Balance Sheet Management in the Public
Sector, CPA Australia’s Centre of Excellence.
47
Ibid. p. vi
48
CPA Australia, Media Release, Between the sheets of Public Sector balance Sheet
management, 11 September 2003, found at www.cpaaustralia.com.au/01_information_centre
49
Carnegie, Garry & West, Brian, 2003, How Well Does Accrual Accounting Fit the Public
Sector?, Australian Journal of Public Administration, June, p. 83
50
Report of the Auditor General of Canada, 2004, Op.cit. p. 12
51
CPA Australia, 2003, Striking the Balance: Effective Balance Sheet Management in the Public
Sector, p. 19
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
42 of 44

52
Joint Committee of Public Accounts 1998, Asset Management by Commonwealth Agencies,
Report No 363, Canberra, July, p. 1, (evidence given by Coopers & Lybrand)
53
ANAO, 1996, Better Practice Guide, Asset Management, and Asset Management Handbook
Canberra, June.
54
Ibid, p19
55
Weller, Patrick, 2001, Australia’s Mandarins: the frank and the fearless, Op.cit. p.152
56
Shergold, Dr Peter, 2003 Two Cheers for the Bureaucracy: Public Service, Political Advice
and Network Governance, Op.cit, p. 6
57
Office of the Auditor General of Canada 2002. Modernizing Accountability in the Public
Sector. Report of the Auditor General of Canada, Ottawa. December. p.1.
58
Behm, Robert, 2001, Rethinking Democratic Accountability, Op.cit.
59
Ibid, p.8
60
Ibid, pp 6-10
61
Ibid, p. 28
62
Mulgan, Richard Professor. 1997, Contracting Out and Accountability. Australian Journal of
Public Administration Vol 56 No 4, pp.106-117
63
Murray, Senator Andrew, 2001. Time to Root Out Corporate Delinquency, Australian
Financial Review, 13 June. p.55
64
Behm, Robert, 2001, Rethinking Democratic Accountability, Op.cit.
65
Savoie, Donald J, 1995, What is Wrong with the New Public Management?, Canadian Public
Administration, Vol 38, No 1 1995, pp 115-115, as cited by Behn at p. 85
66
Desautels, Denis. 1999. Accountability for Alternative Service Delivery Arrangements in the
Federal Government, Address to the Institute of Public Administration Conference on
Collaborative Government, Ottawa, 22 April, p.9.
67
Uhr, John 1999. Three Accountability Anxieties : A Conclusion to the Symposium. Australian
Journal of Public Administration Vol 58 No 1, p.98.
68
Considine, Mark 2002. The End of the Line? Accountable Governance in the Age of
Networks, Partnerships and Joined-Up Services. Governance. Vol 15 No 1 January. p.23.
69
Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee (SFPARC) 2000, Inquiry
into the Mechanism for Providing Accountability to the Senate in Relation to Government
Contracts, The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Senate, June 26, p.35.
70
Report of the Auditor-General of Canada, 2002, Modernizing Accountability Practices in the
Public Sector, Ch 9, December
71
Freund, P A, 1972, The Supreme Court of the United States: its business, purposes and
performance, as cited by Heald, David, 2003, Fiscal Transparency: Concepts, Measurement,
and UK Practice, Public Administration, Vol 81, No 4 p. 725
72
Hood, C, 2001, Transparency as cited by Heald, David, 2003, Fiscal Transparency: Concepts,
Measurement, and UK Practice, Public Administration, Vol 81, No 4 p. 725
73
Hogg, John. Senator 2000, Keeping the bureaucrats honest, edited version of a speech given
to the Australasian Study of Parliament Group National Conference, Parliament House,
Brisbane, 15 July, reported in the Canberra Times, 25 July, p.9.
74
ANAO, 2003, Annual Report 2002-2003, Canberra, October, p.13
75
Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit 2001, Review of the Auditor-General Act 1997,
Report No. 386, Canberra, August, quoted in Barrett, P. 2002, Some Perspectives on the Audit
Relationship with Parliament, House of Representatives Occasional Seminar Series.
Parliament House. Canberra 20 September, p.4
76
Stewart, Dr Jenny 2001, Hands off the Auditor!, in the Public Sector Informer, Canberra,
October, p. 6.
77
Commonwealth of Australia, Management Advisory Committee, 2004, Connecting
Government: Whole of Government Responses to Australia’s Priority Challenges
78
Ibid, p. 1
79
Ibid, p.15
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
43 of 44

80
Ibid, p.13
81
Ibid, pp. 78-79
82
John Mortimer’s character, barrister Horace Rumpole of the Bailey, often quoted Lord
Stankey’s ruling the English case of Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions, which
established the ‘golden thread of English law’ whereby the burden of proof lies with the
prosecutor in a criminal trial.
83
Abetz, The Hon Eric, The Role of Corporate Governance in improving transparency and
accountability in the public sector, found at www.dofa.gov.au
, p.5
84
Research to Focus on public service, Canberra Times, Friday 21 May 2004.
85
Ibid
86
Grant, Richard, 2004, Public and private: the shrinking gap, Canberra Times, Tuesday 1 June
87
Department of Finance and Administration, 2002. Overview of Formal Elements of
Governance in the Commonwealth Address by Marc Mowbray-d’Arbela to the IIR
Conference on Corporate Governance in the Public Sector, Canberra, 12 August
88
Mulgan, Richard 2000, Comparing Accountability in the Public and Private Sectors.
Australian Journal of Public Administration Vol 59 No 1. March. p.89.
89
Barrett, Pat, 2001, Some Current issues in Accountability, a presentation to the Public Service
and Merit Protection Commission SES Breakfast, Canberra, July, p.4
90
Watson, Dr David, 2003, The Rise and Rise of Public Private Partnerships: Challenges for
Public Accountability, a paper delivered to the CPA Public Sector Congress, Canberra 15-17
September, p.8
91
ANAO, 2003, Better Practice Guide, Public Sector Governance, Vol. 1, Canberra, July
92
Heracleous, Loizos 2001, ‘What is the impact of corporate governance on organizational
performance?’, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 9(3), pp. 165-73.
93
ANAO, 2003, Better Practice Guide on Public Sector Governance, Volumes 1 and 2,
Canberra, July.
94
Nolan Committee of the UK, 1995. First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life,
London.
95
ANAO, 2003, Better Practice Guide, Public Sector Governance, Vol. 1, Op.cit, pp. 14-15
96
Barrett P, 2002, ‘Achieving Better Practice Corporate Governance in the Public Sector’,
keynote address delivered to Best Practice Corporate Governance in the Public Sector, IQPC
Conference 26-27 June, Rydges Lakeside, Canberra, p. 10.
97
Australian Stock Exchange, 2003, Principles of Good Corporate Governance and Best
Practice Recommendations, March, found at www.asx.com.au/about/Corporate Governance
98
Standards Australia, 2003, AS 8000-2003: Corporate Governance—Good governance
principles, June, found at www.standards.com.au/catalogue
99
The Commonwealth Treasury , CLERP (Audit Reform and Corporate Disclosure) Bill 2003,
found at www.treasury.gov.au
100
Prime Minister of Australia 2002, Review of Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities
and Office Holders, Press Release, 14 November
101
ANAO, 1997, Applying Principles and Practice of Corporate Governance in Budget Funded
Agencies, Discussion Paper, July.
102
ANAO, 1999, Corporate Governance in Commonwealth Authorities and Companies,
Discussion Paper, May.
103
ANAO, 2003, Better Practice Guide on Public Sector Governance, Volumes 1 and 2, Op.cit.
104
See: Donald J. Johnston (Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development), 2002,‘Better values for better governance’, OECD Observer, 18 October;
and Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld 2002, ‘What makes great boards?’, Harvard Business Review,
September.
CPA Forum 2004 - Singapore
44 of 44

105
Groom Michael (President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales)
2002. Corporate Governance – The Role of Financial Reporting and Auditing in Good
Corporate Governance. IOSCO Conference, 25 May, p. 5.
106
Ernst & Young, Business Agenda 2004, Personal accountability, January, p.2
107
Lucy, Jeffrey, 2004, FSR, CLERP 9 and surveillance programs: ASIC priorities over the next
12 months, an address to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, Queensland 2004
CA Business Forum, p.10
108
Sullivan Mark, 2002, ‘Beyond Financial Disclosure’, Australian CPA, Volume 72, issue 11,
p. 44.
109
Abetz, Senator, The Hon Eric, The Role of Corporate Governance in improving transparency
and accountability in the public sector, Op.cit p.8